holdingoutforjacob wrote:Rings. Use some common sense, man!! Why would she be putting down women by saying that men have manipulated and conned and forced them into submission for years?? That was definitely a dig on the male race, my dear masculine friend!!

Also, it was true. I did an entire term paper on it last year for my social studies class.... lord did I have a lot to say!!

holdingoutforjacob: You do realize that The Dark Knight is a guy, right?

His post was in respone to one of Jazz Girl's, where she expressed an opinion regarding how he relates his military experience to relationships. His post:

You don't like my military concepts, ahhh come on, the conquest of women and the conquest of territory have been the male occupation for a few milenium now... Such sweat dreams are made of these...

makes it sound like men should be the expert in this topic, because it has been a male-dominated event for a very long time.

I never disputed that what he said was true. However, in the context of the discussion, it came out like a dig against Jazz Girl simply because she is female.

holdingoutforjacob wrote:Rings. Use some common sense, man!! Why would she be putting down women by saying that men have manipulated and conned and forced them into submission for years?? That was definitely a dig on the male race, my dear masculine friend!!

Also, it was true. I did an entire term paper on it last year for my social studies class.... lord did I have a lot to say!!

holdingoutforjacob: You do realize that The Dark Knight is a guy, right?

His post was in respone to one of Jazz Girl's, where she expressed an opinion regarding how he relates his military experience to relationships. His post:

You don't like my military concepts, ahhh come on, the conquest of women and the conquest of territory have been the male occupation for a few milenium now... Such sweat dreams are made of these...

makes it sound like men should be the expert in this topic, because it has been a male-dominated event for a very long time.

I never disputed that what he said was true. However, in the context of the discussion, it came out like a dig against Jazz Girl simply because she is female.

And what he said, and what you said, are not the same things.

Yep, all man here holdingoutforjacob...no worries, it can be hard to tell sometimes with the aliases’ we have.

It was actually meant tongue in cheek, with a side of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more from the pepper mill. Kind of like Rob holding out on the ladies was meant as a joke. Hard to hear or see tone or body language on the list…you know they did a study and found that the written word is only 7% of our conveyance of communications. That meaning with out the other verbal & non-verbal que’s we can only expect to get across 7% of what we would like to say by the written word alone. Scary isn’t it?

Actually there is a vast difference between fear and caution. Let’s see if I can better explain; fear trigger involuntary responses like 'Flight or Fight." The person who lets fear control them has given up the ability to have rational thoughts. Whereas, the cautious person still retains the ability to determine what course they wish to take. In life and death this margin is often the deciding factor who lives and who dies. So, in my book there is a vast difference. If you feel differently please give your thoughts. The Dark Knight

Well your definition of fear and caution is quiet plausible, but does it include the fact that you could be both at the same time?I say that yes, you can: example suppose someone fearful of something, and they go about overcoming that fear, but there is the caution still there when they try to overcome that fear. Edward was in fear on losing control in an intimate way with Bella, his fear is based on the thought of maybe really hurting her or even killing her. These thoughts to Bella seem to be irrational to Bella, yet Edward letss this fear control his actions. That is the fear way of looking at your defintion of fear

So then the cautous, would be Edward knows how strong he is wants to be with Bella in every sense of the word but needs to feel that this will be a well thought out choice that he will not regret. So he seeks out more information about it before he proceeds with it , and weighs the deciding factors like, is this going to work or is Bella going to die if I try? Then he makes a cautios desicion based first on fear and then on caution. So your vast difference in fear and caution doesn't seem to be necessarily true and I do not believe in the case of Bella and Edward that it applies. So goes your theory Dark Knight on Bella and Edwards intimacy.

I can see your point all to well. I have seen a person move through caution one moment into full blown fear driven panic attack in the blink of an eye. Kind of mind blowing to see it happen like that but there it is. But there are always exceptions to any general rule of thumb.

Let me see if I can put Caution, fearful and Fear Driven into terms, as I see them played out in the series. This will be a general statement to give an overall understanding of context, not specific.

For me in Twilight Edward is fear driven in terms of his proximity to Bella. After he tasted her blood during the fight with James he becomes fearful of what he might do but has some confidence in his ability to control himself. He becomes fear driven again after New Moon Bella's birthday party (thus making his biggest mistake in the series). After the trip to Italy he becomes cautious around Bella knowing that he now has a strong measure of control when it comes to him being around Bella. He seems to go through these three concepts at various stages in the books and I suspect that he will never fully conquer his fears.

Caution, fearful and fear driven are of course shade of grey in the dim light of Twilight, nice pun?

For me in Twilight Edward is fear driven in terms of his proximity to Bella. After he tasted her blood during the fight with James he becomes fearful of what he might do but has some confidence in his ability to control himself. He becomes fear driven again after New Moon Bella's birthday party (thus making his biggest mistake in the series). After the trip to Italy he becomes cautious around Bella knowing that he now has a strong measure of control when it comes to him being around Bella. He seems to go through these three concepts at various stages in the books and I suspect that he will never fully conquer his fears.

After he saved her from James, I do not see Edward at all being fearful of Bella's blood, in fact I see the opposite. He tasted it and he had the strength to stop. After that his caution with Bella was nol based on him but others, Jasper in NM. That was the reason he left. There is not one bit of evidence of what you are saying so please tell me where you are coming from? Yes he was fearful for Bella but it wasn't fear from him, but others. He was fearful in the intimancy which we already covered so where else is there to back your theory of fear and caution? As for him ever conquering his fears, Edward is a worrier it is who he is, this does not make him fearful. I do believe that you are not using the word correctly. Caution after James, fear for her but not from himself after Jasper, then cautious after that, with Victoria and everything else . The fear did not come from him being with her, but what could happen to her. Do you understand what I am saying because I not sure if I am coming across what I mean. Edward lost his fear of killing Bella after James, he did still have a fear of an itimate relationship as I stated but the fear of anything else coming directly from him was gone.

holdingoutforjacob wrote:Rings. Use some common sense, man!! Why would she be putting down women by saying that men have manipulated and conned and forced them into submission for years?? That was definitely a dig on the male race, my dear masculine friend!!

Also, it was true. I did an entire term paper on it last year for my social studies class.... lord did I have a lot to say!!

holdingoutforjacob: You do realize that The Dark Knight is a guy, right?

His post was in respone to one of Jazz Girl's, where she expressed an opinion regarding how he relates his military experience to relationships. His post:

You don't like my military concepts, ahhh come on, the conquest of women and the conquest of territory have been the male occupation for a few milenium now... Such sweat dreams are made of these...

makes it sound like men should be the expert in this topic, because it has been a male-dominated event for a very long time.

I never disputed that what he said was true. However, in the context of the discussion, it came out like a dig against Jazz Girl simply because she is female.

And what he said, and what you said, are not the same things.

ARGHHH!!!! I do that all the time and then feel stupid for it all the time!!! We should have a place in our little boxes to the right of our posts that show whether or not we're male or female, now that there are more guys hanging out here.

I DID read it in the context of the discussion, and obviously I took it in the context it was meant to be taken in, and also I was joking when I replied to you. So there's no need to continually come at me with that much ferocity. Jeez.

Where am I going with this? Well glad you asked. As I brought up earlier some of the folks on this list give Edward a free pass on his many past transgressions. I made the point that Edward is a bad guy; He murdered, stole cars and came very close to killing Bella. Some say he’s a vampire and that what they do, while other say he did them for good reasons (killing monsters, rapist and other murderers), while others just let it slide. For me, personal accountability is big.

To me Edward is a bad guy. To those that give him the pass because he’s a vampire or he was dispensing justice I say this. The soldiers that fight our wars have to kill. They are called to duty to do things that are against our normal society standards. Are they to be excused too? You might say yes to this out of hand or respect for them and what they are called to do. But here’s the rub, each sin committed whether justified or not, whether ordered to do so or it just happens leaves a scare on your soul. Yes they are fighting the enemy and death happens, but does that mean it’s OK?

Here’s a quote from “Kingdom of Heaven” that may shed some light on where I am coming from, “You see, none of us chose our end, really. A King may move a man, a father may claim a son, but remember that even when those men who move you be a King or men of power your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God, you cannot say but I was told by others to do thus or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.”

The sentiment on this is plane for one like me. If you committed a sin it is upon you alone regardless of your motives or reasons. Thus, to me Edward’s soul is tainted by his wrong doings. He is not a good man, he maybe trying to be one but his actions have already said otherwise.

Now for atonement, here’s the only argument that I have found to mitigate sins. So after committing the aforementioned sins, you may repent and try to live a life of good deeds. By doing this one might balance the past. Some say it is karma that needs balancing. What say you?

Here’s a quote from “Taken” a miniseries from the Sci-Fi channel, “What make a man who he is? Is it the worst things he has ever done or the best things he wants to be? When you find yourself in the middle of your life and you are nowhere near where you where going. How do you find a way from the person you have become to the one you could have been?”

Should Edward be accountable for his actions or has his atonements been enough to mitigate them?

Accountable to God or accountable to man? Well, of course he's going to be accountable to God no matter what, IMO. I believe that you can ask forgiveness and be forgiven for sins you commit. Then you work hard to try to be better. You will still be judged when you stand before God but you can seek forgiveness here on earth. I don't think this is attonement b/c you don't get out of the punishment, you are just forgiven for it here on earth.

I like what you said about leaving a scar on someone's soul when they commit a sin. It reminds me of the conversation in Harry Potter between Snape and Dumbledore when Dumbledore asks Snape to kill him. I believe that each sin does leave some mark on your soul. The worse the sin, the worse the mark. Eventually, if you keep sinning your soul will be, figuratively, ripped to shreds. I think that Edward is doing a good thing by trying to be a better person and make up for what he does. But unless he seeks forgiveness it's not going to do any good. I don't believe that you can atone for sins. Nothing you will be able to do, no matter how good, can make up for being a sinner. Therefore, Edward will always have those sins marked against him no matter how good he tries to be.

Interesting questions, The Dark Knight. I also have to echo vampirenerd's question: Accountable to God, or accountable to man?

Edward doesn't believe he has a soul (although he may hope that he still does, as I believe he does, evidenced by the end of New Moon) and thinks that he's damned anyway. However, he does carry the burden of knowing he ended all those lives.

I personally believe in atonement- that an effort to do good somehow helps you in the end. I also believe that no matter what you do, it will never erase whatever bad deed you did. Atonement is more a penance process, as well as a reminder never to do that bad thing again.

In my opinion, Edward is atoning. As he tells Bella (regarding feeding on animals): "I don't want to be a monster." He did have his rebellious phase, but at the end it turned him away from that lifestyle and back to his family- and he hasn't slipped since then. (One could argue he didn't slip even in Volterra, when he wanted nothing more than to attract the Volturi's attention.)

Lastly, regarding "dispensing justice." Yes, our soldiers are called to do things that normal society would look down upon. But the government doesn't punish soldiers for it- they were just doing their job. The state gives them a pass; whether or not their religion does the same is another matter.